Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Ruth,

I agree with you about that part of the msg, but it is helpful the
presentation acknowledges that there is a large internal conflict between
those who promulgate the idea that all radiation is hazardous (ICRP and
Greenpeace, to support political agendas and massive gov't funds for no
possible health benefit), and those who have considered the scientific data to
see that there is NO support for the LNT, even where it must be seen if it
were true (except some that explicitly manipulate or misrepresent data).  

Probably more 100 studies that show no adverse health effects and beneficial
health effects and the consistent associated positive biological stimulation
of dose-response at low to moderate doses have been sent to this list over the
last 6 years, and that specific studies used by BEIR, NCRP, ICRP, DOE, etc.,
are misrepresented or even explicitly falsified. As even NCRP-121 stated,
there is NO contrary evidence that supports the LNT.  Therefore we must be
very concerned about the idea that "we just need to explain radiation effects
to the public (better)."  Who's "we" Kemo Sabe?

But, of course, "we" ARE explain it to the public, all the time! See e.g.,
BEIR VI and the political campaign by the Committee and EPA to promulgate its
misrepresentations, as with all these "studies" BEFORE the data that they are
misrepresenting is available to the scientific community.  And when, like
Robley Evans in the HPJ 1974 documented BEIR 1972 misrepresentation of the
data, it is totally ignored, and still TODAY the rad protectionists are
misrepresenting the radium dial painter data, using the falsified Mays/Lloyd
"curve" in BEIR IV to "show" a linear dose-response, to further ratchet limits
on radionuclides in water.  

The same is true of BEIR V; NCRP SC1-6; IARC '95; and dozens of other examples
that have been provided here and elsewhere where rad protectionists
intentionally mislead the public.  See e.g., that Steve Wing gets a satellite
hookup to all the national labs to fear-monger, BY DOE ITSELF!, to promulgate
his demonstrably false results to the workforce, as part of DOE's commitment
to maintain public fear, and its $100s Billions in programs (with the
complicity of the industry feeders at its trough).  

See one of the most extreme cases:  Richardson/DOE telling the country that
the radiation health effects research science shows that we have been killing
AEC/DOE workers for 50 years!! at doses far below dose limits.  And, worse, we
(the other guys) see NO objections by those of you who have been/are
responsible for killing them.  It is easy to expect that you must be satisfied
that the fraud will justify more rad-protection funds, hand out $$100s
millions to the workers, all to successfully contribute to the commitment to
reinforce the radiation health effects fraud. 

The public is not "radiophobic," or "ignorant," any more than most rad
protectionists are who have been equally misled about the scientific evidence
by their education. But that's less excuse when the evidence is known, whether
from the early years of Brucer, Evans, and hundreds of others, in the
literature, the HPS Newsletter, to the recent volume of critical science and
literature that documents the fallacious support for the LNT for
fear-mongering. But then you perhaps (I believe erroneously) perceive that
your job depends on maintaining (or at least not objecting to) such public
fear-mongering... (don't get caught by your management; or don't get marked by
your funding agencies).  

Do a root-cause analysis; fix the real problem.  Then consider "communicating"
with the public.

As we move toward getting this in court, there will be support by dozens of
highly credible and specifically people who do not have these conflicts of
interest, plus hundreds who support the scientific and legal resolution of
these failures.  We have developed a large list of supporters whose identities
are confidential, but can support this when the issue is engaged.  If you want
to get in touch with us in confidence we can maintain that confidence.

Thanks.

Regards, Jim
Radiation, Science, and Health
muckerheide@mediaone.net
==============================

ruth_weiner wrote:
> 
> I read this "eye-opener," and it certainly didn't tell me anything I haven't
> heard many many times from people who are trying to tell me how to
> communicate with the public.  You know: talk in plain language, etc.  The
> problem is not, I insist, communication.  When the word "sesquipedelian"
> appears in the morning newspaper comic strips (Nine Chickweed Lane, Albuq.
> Journal, Aug.3, 2000), and when I can find "rem," "becquerel," etc. in
> Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, I don't think there is a problem with
> language as such.  The antinukes' insistence that scientists don't know how
> to talk to "the public" is a cover story for the firm anti-nuclear stance
> that they are not going to believe anything they don't want to believe, not
> going to be rational if they don't feel like it, not going to engage in
> reasoned discussion, not going to admit anything, and it's all under the
> guise of "if you only knew how to talk to us everything would be OK, but you
> don't, so keep on trying."
> 
> Ruth Weiner
> ruth_weiner@msn.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dhr. Van rooyen <rooyen@aib-vincotte.nl>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Date: Friday, August 04, 2000 3:30 AM
> Subject: Re: loosing, Tooth Fairy Project
> 
> >To radsafers who are willing to open up their eyes,
> >
> >and with an interest for the subject 'radiation protection and public
> >information'
> >I suggest to download IRPA 10- Eye Openers number EO7 (pdf file)
> >
> >http://www.oita-nhs.ac.jp/%7Eirpa10/EO/index.html
> >
> >
> >Paul van Rooijen
> >Manager HSE
> >AIB-Vinçotte Nederland BV, Postbus 6869, 4802 HW Breda ,
> >The Netherlands
> >tel ++31 (0) 76 579 11 54
> >fax ++31 (0) 76 587 47 60
> >e-mail rooyen@aib-vincotte.nl
> >
> >
> >At 15:30 3-8-00 -0500, you wrote:
> >>Definitely. During my attendance at this week's Nuclear Energy
> >>Institute Health Physics Forum, one primary factor discussed during
> >>the workshop on Risk Communication, was the nuclear utility executive
> >>management's lack of understanding the public, how to talk to them,
> >>how to deal with them, and to address the public's primary concerns
> >>and perceptions.
> >>
> >>In order to determine appropriate counter,measures, one must first
> >>identify the root causes. There are many. We have only identified the
> >>tip of the iceberg. To be successful, we need to address all of the
> >>primary root causes, honestly and candidly, and where there are real
> >>issues, we need to effectively mitigate them.
> >>
> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
> >>Director, Technical Extension 2306
> >>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division Fax:(714) 668-3149
> >
> >>ICN Biomedicals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> >
> >>ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> >
> >>Costa Mesa, CA 92626
> >>
> >>Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> >>ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
> >>
> >
> >
> >************************************************************************
> >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> >information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html